Dr Dingle's Blog / doctors

Sustainable doctors prescribe around 25% less antibiotics.

Sustainable doctors prescribe around 25% less antibiotics.

This study published in the British Medical Journal showed doctors trained in nutritional and environmental medicine and who practiced complimentary medicine prescribed about 25% less antibiotics.
While antibiotics have been lifesaving, the overprescription of antibiotics has sparked the evolution of drug-resistant strains of life threatening bacteria which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths each year. The US Centers for Disease Control estimates that up to 50 % of prescribed antibiotics in the USA are unnecessary. Unfortunately, the use of antibiotics is often in those groups that are also more vulnerable to dysbiosis including infants born via C-section and in those born preterm when compared to term infants born vaginally. Potentially compounding the problems. Microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites cause many of the world’s diseases, yet only bacterial infections are usually susceptible to treatment with commonly prescribed antibiotics.
 
However, even more subtle side effects of antibiotics on the gut microbiome are only just beginning to be discovered. Just one does of antibiotics can wipe our you gut microbiome and last for years and even longer.
To find sustainable GP's in Australia got o www.acnem.org
 
Source
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e020488
Read more →

Statin Side Effects - A Deadly Case Study

Statin Side Effects - A Deadly Case Study

The side effects of statin drugs go for a few pages and are very common but the doctors keep ignoring them and their patients, putting their health at risk (see below).

The side effects of these drugs outweigh any potential benefits and can include everything from mental decline and muscle wastage to diabetes in tens of thousands of people. Worst of all, patients believe that they are getting something that is going to reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke—and they are not. The false hopes promised by pharmaceutical companies often result in patients not taking any other steps that could actually save their lives (besides taking a pill that may or may not help at all). The dependence on a self-serving industry to deliver good health outcomes means interventions such as stress relief, exercise or promotion of dietary strategies are ignored; this does not serve the interests of the population.

Below is a fairly typical message I get almost on a daily basis -

“Hi Dr Dingle, just to let you know that I am 61 years old. One of my personal experiences that I referred to with statins was when my partner had a quadruple bypass. The Cardiologists automatically prescribe statins after heart surgery. My partner was a model recovery. Up and about walking up the stairwells very soon after he was back in the ward. Our return home from Sydney to a regional town was delayed due to the flooding of the railway lines as he was not allowed to fly. Off we went on excursions, taking it easy but managing well. We returned home and in no time after the two weeks symptoms started to set in. Extreme pain in one leg, aching, a rash, shingles and I watched my partner deteriorate daily. He was no longer able to walk up our stairs. My instincts told me to check out statin symptoms as they were classic from the little I knew. I found out that statins were contrary indicated for people of Asian descent due to their small stature particularly at the usually prescribed doses. I could not believe that a lay person had found that info out and yet the cardiologist obviously paid no heed. I went with my partner to his GP (owner of the practice and so called holistic) to vouch for the changes that we had observed. The Dr agreed to take him off statins but talked of a lower dose. I asked the Dr if he was going to report the adverse reaction to the statin. He said no but you can if you want. The Dr subsequently referred to me in the letter to the cardiologist as "hostile "as he had to explain why my partner was not on a statin. I was shocked as I was respectful and polite the whole time in his office but I stated quite clearly my observations of my partners condition. I believe that if my partner had continued any longer on his prescribed statins he would have been in a wheelchair at the very least.

S.”

The unfortunate thing about this message is that it is all too common.

Read more →

Conscious Living Nutrition

Conscious Living Nutrition

Despite the overwhelming importance diet and nutrition have in our lives, most people show very little interest in food other than satisfying their hunger or taste buds. Perhaps this is because people are too busy doing other things, perhaps it’s too complicated or maybe it’s because of all the conflicting information ‘out there’. For many people it’s simply too confusing, and this confusion is brought about in part by the vested interests of those companies marketing our food stuffs.
 
To make their products competitive, the cheapest ingredients available are usually used, whether they are sources locally or internationally. Unfortunately, energy-dense grains, fats and sweets represent the lowest-cost dietary options to the consumer. Good taste, high convenience, and the low cost of energy-dense, in conjunction with larger portion options and low satiating power, are the principal reasons for overeating and weight gain.
 
The breakfast food people tell us to buy their product so that we’ll be eating a nutritionally balanced breakfast, but most of the nutrition in their products comes from the vitamins and minerals they add. The soya food industry and dairy industry tell us their products are healthy for a whole other set of reasons and the confusion deepens. This is complicated by the fact that we (including many doctors) usually have a poor understanding of even the basics of nutrition. Most people receive their information from the advertisements on television and from the food packets. It’s literally in our faces all the time, from when we first get up and stare at the breakfast food packaging, to the multitude of ads on television.
 
For the past 50 years we have had misleading information and as a result the public are confused about what they should be eating to stay healthy. Even people who spend their time trying to keep up with the information are confused. If you followed the recommendations on the food pyramid for the past 20 years there is a very good chance that you would have ended up with diabetes, had a heart attack or stroke, gotten cancer or had some other major chronic illness. Hence the high levels of chronic illness now experienced in developed countries. Even the new version, MyPlate, while a little easier to understand, will still increase your risk of chronic illness.
 
The food pyramid, which was developed in 1992 by advertising and marketing researchers to develop an image the consumer could identify with and easily understand. It was never intended to be a health guideline it was developed to sell agricultural produce. The pyramid was then widely distributed and has been used as an educational tool, basis for dietary assessment, and part of policy documents. To highlight the strong influence of industry on US food guidelines, in 2011 the US Department of Agriculture, the same organisation who created the food pyramid, labelled pizza as a vegetable because it has tomato paste. Any wonder the food pyramid was so wrong.
 
Most food guidelines are controlled by vested interests seeking only short-term gains through promoting nutritionally undesirable eating habits. For example, Nutrition Australia, the controlling body of the healthy food pyramid, has a number of corporate members, such as Dairy Australia, an industry group, as well as the company Tefal (which sells the number one deep fryer in the world). These corporate members may influence decisions made within Nutrition Australia. There are examples of the sugar and salt industry manipulating food guidelines and even protesting against claims of adverse health effects of their products; the main reason for this is protection of profits. Thus questions must be asked about the effects that these corporate members have on changes to the healthy food pyramid. If changes occurred would they work in favour of the corporate members or would they work in favour of human health?
 
Industry can manipulate food guidelines by using them as marketing tools. The Heart Foundation Tick (HFT), a common food logo, has guidelines developed by the Australian Heart Foundation. However, the HFT is a voluntary system having a minimum fee of $3,000, meaning food companies purchase the HFT after passing its guidelines, although the HFT can be placed on fruit and vegetables for free. As the HFT is voluntary it may not represent the best choice for the consumer; for instance a competitor’s product may be more nutritious but if the company has not paid for the HFT it is not endorsed by the Heart Foundation. Yet less nutritious products can be endorsed. The American version of the HFT, the HeartGuide Food Endorsement Program, lasted just two months with consumers, nutritionists and even the U.S. government rejecting the system as biased. Similarly, both the Canadian and British heart associations dropped their food endorsement programs to remain independent, leaving Australia one of the only countries maintaining the HFT. Recently the Heart Foundation Tick was given to a number of McDonald’s products as well as 48 sugary breakfast foods. The foundation seems to have not seen the growing body of literature on sugar and chronic illness, including heart attack, or maybe it did and simply ignored it. It should also be noted that the Heart Foundation has received millions of dollars from drug companies who have a vested interest in heart disease. Not so independent. Amongst many donations the drug company Pfizer made to supposedly independent health advocacy groups in Australia were $227,409 in 2008 and $126,000 in 2009 to the Heart Foundation. So much for independent heart health advice.
 
Perhaps the best example of industry’s vested interests is food claims upon products. Claims such as “low in fat,” “all natural” or “light” can often be misleading and trick consumers into buying something they think is healthy when it may not be. Industry suggests these claims are a source of information for consumers; however, these claims are often only a marketing tool influencing consumers, not a health promotion strategy. If the packaging on a food product makes a nutritional claim, it may be best not to eat that food.
 
If you search in the scientific literature for foods that improve your health, that is, foods which reduce the risk of diseases and give long term benefits, you’ll discover that fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts and seeds (and many vitamin, mineral and other supplements) are the healthiest and most nutritious of all foods. Most of the grains we consume are over processed carbohydrates with so little nutritional value that the food companies are forced to add vitamin and minerals to make them a little healthy. These foods also have a high glycemic index, which means they raise blood sugar levels very quickly, damages the blood cells and is converted to fat.
 
Everything you eat will either accelerate illness, or will work to health, strength and vitality. An excess of processed, grain-based food is debilitating to your body, as are all the over-processed foods. This and other dietary issues have been clouded by the focus on calories. Despite the obsession with calculating the energy units in food, the general population continues to put on weight and get sick from diet-related diseases. Instead our focus should be on the nutritional content of food, not on calories.

 

Read more →